> I have used "right to Internet access" as an unsharp synonym for "right to computer access"

I'm sorry, I still can't see your point: your instance of
freedom 0 only applies to the programs you actually use;
if you have no computing device, your freedom 0 is pointless
(or you are free in the trivial sense).

Anyway, what I (personally) can advise is to handle
these issues with some means other than software licensing;
I believe software licenses are just not the right tool
for it.

Apart from that, if you want to discuss these matters
with knowledgeable people, you'd better write to licensing@fsf.org.

One could cooperate with organizations like Projects Abroad and provide funding for courses on open source topics and that would even help to get more donations (possibly for a dedicated budget only for that purpose).

Even if the cultural imperialism argument is considered invalid due to the growth of the internet world-wide then one could at least deduce a responsibility to educate for the open source community, so that more people can compete in that global internet economy. I have, for instance, been to Morocco with Projects Abroad and held an introductory course for the Java programming language for Moroccan working-class women.

My fault, I have used "right to Internet access" as an unsharp synonym for "right to computer access" in the assumption that an Internet café constitutes the most abundant supply of computer access, of course the OLPC, for instance, is not always equipped with Internet access.

> In a perfect world freedom 0 would be founded on a Right_to_Internet_access

In the real world freedom 0 is not essentially founded on that right (I believe, Internet access fails to be a limiting factor even in such peculiar regimes as Cuba); therefore I can't see how your further considerations (which, I must confess, I don't fully comprehend) may matter in practice.

The fundamental principles ignore the digital divide and making people with internet access more wealthy may have the opposite
effect on the people on the other side (depending on the investment philosophy of the people who became more wealthy).
Consequently there is software with a high potential for revenue that does reduce the global availability of freedom 0,
unless we can guarantee that continually more and more people are educated to make use of the software and given access to the internet.

Even in this latter case one could argue that there are cultures who prefer not to become internet entrepreneurs and creating
economic pressure on these cultures to become internet entrepreneurs could be seen as cultural imperialism (by the internet community, which often exhibits a profound lack of culture), even if we would agree that their descendants are generally bound to change their mind.

This consideration cannot in general be expected from programmers who develop software for other programmers, at least unless their moral education improves significantly, thus offering a licensing option that makes this point may seem worthwhile.

I have run into a moral dilemma. While the goal of my project is to offer free software to those who require it there appears to be the chance that the spirit of sharing can be abused by people with malicious intent and cause resource deprivation and economic stress to people who might otherwise enjoy a postmaterialist attitude.

(Side note: Wikipedia states that from 1980 to 1990 the share of "pure post-materialists" increased from 13 to 31 percent in West Germany. After the economic and social stress caused by German reunification in 1990 it dropped to 23 percent in 1992 and stayed on that level afterwards).

My software is an online travel agency (http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/frs). Online travel agencies do have the effect of inviting travellers to use the internet and to concentrate revenues, not available to regular travel agencies anymore. My software will allow regular travel agencies to log in and to use the system to gain customers that would otherwise have been lost to competing online travel agencies.

It is, however, unclear how people will use the software. Without this feature the software could be used to the opposite effect. I do seem to require a "Postmaterialist APGL3" license that demands from commercial users to implement a set of postmaterialist policies which would have to be defined by the FSF or a committee for that license.

What do you advise?

(Side note: The Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council says: "... Member States and the Commission are to encourage the drawing-up of codes of conduct; this is not to impair the voluntary nature of such codes and the possibility for interested parties of deciding freely whether to adhere to such codes. ...")